Zendric

Ferguson, MO protests and police brutality.

Rare said
I understand that he had a knife and was walking towards them, but you don't need to shot at him ten times. I think that one or two shots in the leg would get him back to reality, but shoot him ten times, that doesn't make any fucking sense. Oh wait, we are talking about American cops after all.

If I was in one of those officer's situations, I would shoot until the person was on the ground. Pretty reasonable. The guy wanted to die by cops and certainly got what he wanted.

Rare said
I aren't going to apologize to the officer, who shot him way more times than I would. But, if you're the American citizen, that thinks that black people are crazy as fuck, then you should have a hard look at your self.I believe that the cops shouldn't aim to kill, but aim to harm. Which means shooting in the leg not at the head at the first shot, but we are talking about America here.

In America using lethal force to only harm or injure is a great way to get sent to jail. There have been successful prosecutions in the past that use the case "If you felt you were in enough danger to justify lethal force to defend yourself why did you just shoot them in the leg/arm?"

Rare said
Also, China is using this event to talk some sense to America, which is funny and China has good points.

Funny indeed.

Ferguson, MO protests and police brutality.

Brovo said
If the gun could not have been pointed at Brown when it went off, how did six bullets find their way into Brown's body? Unless you mean that the gun did not go off in the vehicle?

I will explain my meaning further, I can see how it was a bit confusing(I do tend to get ahead of myself when writing and not include things I thought I did/was thinking about).

What I meant was, the fact that there was no residue on Brown at all meant that when the gun went off inside the vehicle(there was one shot that occurred during the controversial sequence with Brown at the window of the vehicle the officer was in separate from the others when the officer was outside) it was not pointed at or nearly at Brown as the gunpowder residue is distributed in a rough cone 1-1.5 feet in front of the muzzle. This, at least in my mind, indicates a struggle for the weapon.

Brovo said
You were merely damaging the arguments of others on your side, not helping them. Just food for thought.

Indeed, ad homs accomplish nothing. Also, further, just because one doesn't have experience in something does not mean they can not partake in an argument or discussion about that as long as they are thoroughly educated. For example, I wasn't there when Stalin rose to power, but I could certain describe much of what happened, what living conditions were like, and the lasting effects of his legacy to the extent of my knowledge. Would someone who lived under Stalin have their perspective to share, perhaps countering(or reinforcing!) my points? Certainly, but that is the purpose of a debate or discussion, mutual understanding. That is what I believe, along with sharing our opinions on the matter, is the point of this thread, yes?

Ferguson, MO protests and police brutality.

Brovo said
Yeah. If only short ranged 100% guaranteed to stun instantly with extremely minimal chance of killing weapons existed. If. Only.

Not exactly 100%. A law enforcement research group did a study of multiple taser brands, and found a maximum accuracy of both barbs hitting the target of 91%, while the lower end of the surveyed brands was 73%, all at 13 ft on a static target. And thats just accuracy, thats not counting the fact some people can resist it, while others can quickly pull the barbs out, minimizing stunning. Only a relatively small amount of people can do that, but the factor still exists.

http://www.lawanddemocracy.org/pdffiles/psdb09-02.pdf <- Heres the study I referenced if you want to check it out, its actually pretty interesting.

Ferguson, MO protests and police brutality.

Brovo said
2: if they were struggling for the firearm, that is point blank range. Ignoring everything else, you're telling me six shots at point blank including two guaranteed kill shots to the head would leave behind no residue? And that two of those panic fire shots are head shots? And there's no fingerprints from Brown on the firearm last I checked?

I didn't mean to imply that all of the shots occurred at point blank range, just to illustrate that, aside from the single shot inside the car, all of the other shots occurred at an incredible range of distances. He could have been anywhere from 2 feet to 1000 feet(potentially even further) away from the officer when he got shot. Also, from what I've heard only one of the headshots was fatal, and there are a many situations where a struggle for a gun has only one person's hands on the weapon.

Brovo said
3: Is that how cops operate in the states? Frightening. Here in Canada they are trained to use nonlethal where possible, even with firearms, because we want our criminals alive to face a court of law. Mainly to avoid shit like this. Guess I still have a lot to learn about the united states.

Magic Magnum said
Though also being Canadian I'll voice a similliar concern/confusion that Brovo did, the Cop should of aimed for non-lethal shots. Now, panic happens, accidents happen. But this did not seem like a case where the officer could get away with purposely aiming for lethal shots.

It indeed would be nice if one could target for non-lethality in all cases, but it doesnt always turn out that way. I don't know if this officer was an incredible marksman, or only attended the required departmental training shoots, but in either case you have to think of aiming a firearm, especially a handgun in an adrenaline filled scenario, as a cone of fire. The slightest twitch, from a shaky hand to your heart pumping blood through your hands, can angle the barrel a couple degrees in any direction from where you are aiming at, and over a distance even as short as 30 feet it can matter, throwing the bullet off many inches. Thats why you aim AT the target in general, not at the target's _____, so you can guarantee that you hit the target somewhere and stop them.

Ferguson, MO protests and police brutality.

Brovo said
--The head shots were likely execution moves. (Officers should aim not to kill, but disable. The order to kill is only if their life is directly threatened and Brown held no ranged weapon on his person. Combined with the lack of residue this is indicative of either ridiculous incompetence or insane callousness.)

I have to disagree here, on three points. First, speculation on an event is not a fact.

Second, the residue. Residue is only deposited at very close range(sub 1.5/2 feet) directly in front of the muzzle. The range group is so wide as to make the lack of residue only an indicator that the gun was not right next to Brown when he was killed(And also further serves to illustrate that there was likely a struggle for the weapon in the car considering the gun could not have been pointed at Brown when it went off.)

Finally, in a self defense scenario, with adrenaline pumping(and also having just been hit in the head), the line of thought is not, "Alright, he is running at me, I will now aim for the legs, alright, pulling trigger now, bam, bam, that'll stop him." It is much closer to, "Shit! I am now shooting! He's still coming, shoot shoot shoot! Alright he's down." Aiming a handgun to put multiple rounds quickly and accurately on target is somewhat difficult, and is made no easier by the conditions the officer was placed in during the event.

I do, however, agree cessation of rioting and protesting, and an increase in co-operation is going to be necessary to help this situation be resolved.

Ferguson, MO protests and police brutality.

Thundercat said
He shot an unarmed man

To be fair, he shot a charging, 6'4" 250+ lb muscly man, who had not a minute prior punched him in the face in the altercation in the car.

Ferguson, MO protests and police brutality.

mdk said
Six shots, including two to the head..... It's getting increasingly difficult to imagine a scenario where that's okay.

6 shots is actually pretty normal in a scenario where you are being charged. Police are trained to fire until the threat is eliminated(on the ground or otherwise incapacitated). If Brown was charging at the officer who then proceeded to open fire, Brown's arms, which were likely moving whilst he ran, could have taken shots. Then as he began to fall, the officer still shooting, could have been hit in the head. The audio from the previously posted video provides an interesting counterpoint to the other eyewitnesses who say he just stands there and gets shot. And, just as the stereotype goes with police protecting their own, the same stereotype exists around black communities rallied against any police action.

So Boerd said
If I bullrush someone, I put my arm at about eye level parallel to my face or just below. Every piece of evidence confirms the Cop, that this thief ran, then turned around and ran back at him.

Indeed, Brown could also have done this. We dont know and likely never will know the exact details of what occurred unless new evidence surfaces.

I'll be interested to see what the toxicology reports have to say. At this point there is way too little evidence, and a lot of contradiction with what exists, to get a sound idea of what happened.

WTF

This is beautiful.

Rate the Signature Above You

6/10

Amusing, but mildly unsettling.